ABSTRACT
Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74â¯185. Of these, 43â¯931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24â¯705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74â¯839 named contacts, 53â¯314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34â¯345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Contact Tracing , Public Health , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Contact Tracing/statistics & numerical data , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disclosure/statistics & numerical data , Health Services, Indigenous , Humans , Incidence , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Telephone , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
The growing national racial and ethnic diversity has created a greater need for health care delivery systems and health care providers to be more responsive to unique patient needs, that goes beyond meeting the immediate health problems to include attention to other critical component of patient care that take into account cultural competency such as health literacy, health beliefs and behaviors, cultural practices, etc.
Subject(s)
Culturally Competent Care/organization & administration , Indians, North American/ethnology , Medicine, Traditional , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , United States Indian Health Service/organization & administration , Arizona/ethnology , Humans , United StatesABSTRACT
National concerns about reducing the persistent health disparities found among varying racial and ethnic populations have led to initiatives to improve health care delivery systems. Many of these initiatives also promote the cultural competence of health care providers as a way to meet unique patient needs that go beyond immediate health problems, and to account for other critical components of patient care, such as health literacy, health beliefs and behaviors, and cultural practices. This case study describes a patient-centered care model developed by the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona, a model that has added a cadre of traditional tribal practitioners as part of its hospital and other clinical service resources.